The judgment emphasizes the importance of being diligent and careful in attending court proceedings when aware of their pendency, and the burden of proof on a party claiming unawareness of such proceedings.

DEEPA SHARMA, J.

1. This is a husband’s appeal against an order dated 08.03.2016 whereby his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 13.12.2012 was dismissed. The order dated 13.12.2012 was passed on the application of respondent/wife under Section 125 CrPC. The maintenance was fixed at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of petition and the litigation expenses of Rs. 33,000/- were also granted. The main ground of challenge in his application was that he was not aware of the pendency of the proceedings under 125 CrPC as he was never served of the said application. His further contention was that a fraud had been played upon him. The plea before the trial court was that there was no vakalatnama of the counsel who had allegedly appeared before the court and the whole proceeding was a fraud.

That he came to know of this order only on 01.11.2013 when the file was inspected. The necessity of inspecting the file arose as he was informed by his relative at Chandigarh that warrants had been issued against him by a Rohini Court and thereafter he engaged a counsel who inspected the file.

2. It is submitted that the appellant was never served of the proceedings. The notice was initially issued at the Rajpura Road address, upon his father. The respondent/wife had contended that the notice of the petition was issued at Rajpura Road address where it was served upon his father. Sh. Ashok Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent’s father in the court on 23.09.2011 and furnished the correct latest address of the respondent. Notices were issued by the court at that address and he was also ordered to be served by affixation by order dated 19.12.2011 through District Judge, Chandigarh. When the appellant did not appear, the court proposed to proceed under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC and the order of publication was made on 07.03.2012 in Dainik Tribune Delhi and Chandigarh Editions and it was also ordered that the respondent be also served by a way of affixation. However, on 24.05.2012, one counsel appeared on behalf of the husband and sought adjournment on the ground that the matter was likely to be settled. At his request, the court had adjourned the case for 17.07.2012. However, on that date again a joint request for adjournment was made for settlement and the matter was further adjourned to 29.08.2012. On that date again the husband did not appear and on request, he was exempted on medical grounds and matter was further adjourned. It was only on 03.09.2012, that on the statement of his counsel that he had no instructions from the husband, the court proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for several dates but the husband did not appear.

3. The Family Court after hearing the parties and considering the materials on record concluded that the appellant had sufficient information and knowledge about pendency of the proceedings before it, that he had intentionally not attended the court and that he had failed to give any reasonable grounds for his non-appearance. He has based his findings on the following facts:-

(a) The appellant was having the knowledge of pendency of the case which fact was evident from the service of summons at his Rajpura Road address, in response to which, on 23.09.2011, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate had attended the court, on the instructions of the family members of the respondent and furnished the latest address of the respondent. The application of Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate furnishing the address is also on record.

(b) The proceedings dated 23.09.2011 corroborated the report of the process server dated 26.08.2011 and 20.09.2011 which recorded that the respondent had shifted to house no. 6, Khuda Alisher, Chandigarh.

(c) These facts conclusively proved that appellant was served at his given address where his family members resided who never claimed that they had disowned the respondent.

(d) The notices sent at Chandigarh address were received back un-s